Europe is at risk of repeating a conflict on the scale of the Second World War if leaders “appease” Vladimir Putin over Ukraine, a top Conservative has warned.
Tobias Ellwood, an ex-chair of the Commons Defence Select Committee, said that if necessary European nations should help Ukraine to win the war against Russia alone without American help rather than accept a Donald Trump-brokered deal that allows Putin to claim victory.
“This cannot be 1938 again,” he said. “This is Europe’s moment to step up, unite, and continue to fight for Ukraine.”
It comes amid intense concern in Europe about the abrupt change in direction of US foreign policy under Trump.
On Monday, the US twice sided with Russia in votes at the United Nations to mark the third anniversary of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Trump has also branded the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator”, but has refused to use the same term for Putin.
And the US is trying to extract a minerals deal from Ukraine in return for the military aid it has provided to Kyiv.
Writing for The i Paper from Kyiv, Ellwood – a former defence minister who lost his seat at the last election – said: “Europe is witnessing a departure from the decades-old relationship with America.
“Trump is personally helping rehabilitate Vladimir Putin’s credibility on the international stage; and ruling out America’s involvement in Ukraine’s long-term security – unless it comes wrapped in a minerals deal.”
The former Tory MP’s intervention came shortly before Sir Keir Starmer announced a dramatic increase in defence spending in response to “tyrant” Putin and uncertainty over Trump’s commitment to European security.
The Prime Minister said spending on defence would rise from its current 2.3 per cent share of the economy to 2.5 per cent in 2027.
He said he wanted that figure to reach 3 per cent of gross domestic product during the next Parliament.
But to fund it, development assistance aid will be slashed from its current level of 0.5 per cent of gross national income to 0.3 per cent in 2027. Starmer said the plan amounted to “the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War”.
Writing before Starmer’s announcement, Ellwood said that the Continent was faced with a stark choice between an American-led deal which is “likely to benefit Putin – or one led by Europe, which may or may not include American support”.
He said: “In the first instance, any deal that allows Putin to claim a partial victory – even with robust security guarantees – will appear as appeasement and give Russia room to replenish its military and eventually attack again.”
“In the second instance, Europe steps forward to negotiate a deal acceptable to Ukraine – or, if no deal is possible, to continue supporting Ukraine’s war effort, accepting that the outcome of this war will determine any peace that follows. An emboldened Putin means no peace in Europe, while a stronger Ukraine increases European stability.”
Ellwood said that “militarily, with increased defence spending, Europe has the collective hard power to see Ukraine conclude the war without America”.
He said: “On this dark anniversary the banner headline from here in Kyiv is ‘Three Years – Time to Win.’ Ukraine has defied the odds by standing up to a state invasion. It is not ready to throw in the towel, and neither should we.
“This cannot be 1938 again. We cannot appease the bully. This is Europe’s moment to step up, unite, and continue to fight for Ukraine.”
When the US Defence Secretary was asked on Fox News if he agreed that Russia attacked Ukraine unprovoked, Pete Hegseth paused before replying, “It’s complicated.” Hegseth was just one of Donald Trump’s inner circle on the weekend news circuit promoting a dangerous re-write of the Ukraine war.
This is a wake-up call – a new reality. Europe is witnessing a departure from the decades-old relationship with America. During Trump’s last presidency, he was surrounded by experts with the strength of character to advise him wisely and stand up to him when necessary. As Hegseth and others are demonstrating, unless you parrot Trump’s position – no matter how absurd -you will not survive.
The emerging Trump doctrine, driven by a frenzy of Oval Office announcements, executive orders, and outreach to Russia, suggests that the global order, which America once helped craft, is collapsing. We have entered an era of “transactional power play” led by China and Russia: national self-interest trumps any duty to defend international standards. And America First is now heading that way.
The transatlantic alliance has entered a new chapter as America dials back its security commitments in Europe to focus on other parts of the world. America tells Europe that its biggest threat is not Russia but challenges from within; it openly supports the AfD in the German elections; it is willing to label President Volodymyr Zelensky a dictator; Trump is personally helping rehabilitate Vladimir Putin’s credibility on the international stage; and ruling out America’s involvement in Ukraine’s long-term security – unless it comes wrapped in a minerals deal. Some argue this is all Trump bluff – designed to shake up stagnant thinking and find solutions. Sadly, we don’t not have the luxury to find out and must prepare for a change.
Two binary outcomes now loom: one led by America – which is likely to benefit Putin – or one led by Europe, which may or may not include American support.
In the first instance, any deal that allows Putin to claim a partial victory -even with robust security guarantees – will appear as appeasement and give Russia room to replenish its military and eventually attack again.
Putin’s overarching mission – to take all of Ukraine – remains. He sees Ukraine as a non-country that historically belongs to Russia and is a vital buffer between the Motherland and an expanding EU and Nato.
In the second instance, Europe steps forward to negotiate a deal acceptable to Ukraine – or, if no deal is possible, to continue supporting Ukraine’s war effort, accepting that the outcome of this war will determine any peace that follows. An emboldened Putin means no peace in Europe, while a stronger Ukraine increases European stability.
If we choose the latter, as I believe we should, we must address the awkward question: why, after three years, has Western support been limited to prevent Ukraine from losing but not enough to ensure victory? Too frequently, we’ve been spooked by Putin’s nuclear sabre-rattling, which has led to delays in public debates about the scale and lethality of equipment sent to Ukraine.
Militarily, with increased defence spending, Europe has the collective hard power to see Ukraine conclude the war without America. But do we have the collective political will? For those in doubt – consider the consequences for European security – and by extension, our economy – if Putin is allowed to pursue his expansionist agenda. Britain is already subject to daily grey zone warfare designed to cause economic harm and sow political discord. Finally, what message would we be sending to other dictators across the world?
On this dark anniversary the banner headline from here in Kyiv is “Three Years – Time to Win.” Ukraine has defied the odds by standing up to a state invasion. It is not ready to throw in the towel, and neither should we.
This cannot be 1938 again. We cannot appease the bully. This is Europe’s moment to step up, unite, and continue to fight for Ukraine. Let’s not give Putin a “victory” that will allow him to rearm, regroup, and attack again. This is a war on European democracy. Let’s not surrender.
Tobias Ellwood is a Conservative former defence minister
Comments
Leave a Comment